Newsletters
Please report broken links to the Webmaster.
News - May 20, 2006
Interesting article and letter chain in the Hamilton Spectator
The Hamilton Spectator published an article entitled "A lesson in diversity" on May 5th. The rather lengthy chain of letters to the editor published in response to that article have provided interesting reading and provoked public reflection on the issue of discrimination and waste within the Ontario school system. The chain may continue.
While the viewpoints expressed in these letters vary, any public discussion of the issue is likely beneficial to the one school system cause. Polls have consistently shown over several years that the majority of Ontarians and about half of Ontario Catholics support one system. The more they think about the issue, the more likely they are to join us in doing something about the problem.
While the original article is no longer available online, the following links take you to the subsequent letters to the editor (our comments in "Editor's notes"). The original article can probably be obtained through a commercial search engine by most public and university library members.
"A lesson in diversity", by Sharon Boase, The Hamilton Spectator, May 5, 2006.
Editor's notes: The Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board is 7% non-Catholic? Hmm. In other words; 93% Catholic. Hardly diverse. Hardly reflective of the religious makeup of Ontario society. The author is also incorrect in stating that the Catholic board must accept "all comers". Catholic school boards have an absolute right to refuse admissions to non-Catholics until grade 9, when they are required by law to accept all applicants. Bang-on correct about the employment discrimination though. Interestingly, this article was devoid of any mention of the international condemnation of the religious discrimination in our school system. No history of separate schools, however brief, can be complete without mention of that recent history. The UN condemned our school system as discriminatory in both 1999 and 2005.
"Extend school funding", Re: "A lesson in diversity" (May 5), by Michael Orr, May 8, 2006.
Editor's notes: The author presumes it is the government's responsibility to meet the religious needs of students and that students attending public schools cannot remain religious. We beg to differ.
"School funding", Re: "A lesson in diversity" (May 5), by Patrick Daly, Chair, Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board, May 9, 2006.
Editor's notes: It is very convenient for the Chair of a Catholic school board to suggest that other faith-based schools should also receive public funding, but unless those schools were to enjoy the same full funding as the separate system, a cost-prohibitive proposition, discrimination would continue to exist. Full and equivalent funding is likely not what Mr. Daly meant. Furthermore, restricting such funding to faith-based schools would still be unfair to the families using other public school alternatives. If there was any "genius" in the inclusion of separate school rights in the 1867 Constitution, it was in that it provided a workable remedy to the religious intolerance of the day. Quebec, Manitoba, and Newfoundland have all recognized that day has passed and they have eliminated publicly funded denominational schools, either by rescinding their constitutional status or by ignoring it altogether. Both options are open to Ontario.
"Public system preferred", Re: "School funding" (letter, May 9), by M. Bedard, May 11, 2006.
Editor's notes: Amen.
"No religious schools funding", Re: "School funding" (letter, May 9), by Malcolm Buchanan, May 13, 2006.
Editor's notes: While we agree with much of what this author says, the UN clearly indicated that religious school funding is an all (equally - not better for Catholics) or none proposition. Some of the subsequent writers picked up on that error.
"Schooling: It's our money and it should be our choice", Re: "No religious schools funding" (letter, May 13), by Steven Elgersma, May 16, 2006.
Editor's notes: The author asserts that "the Constitution states that 'the tax-dollar shall follow the child' and 'the parents have the prior right to choose the education they want for their children.'" What constitution was he reading? "The-constitution-as-I-would-write-it-myself", perhaps. Not all Christians "feel duty bound to send their children to a Christian school." Many would rather take responsibility for the religious education of their children themselves. They would rather see an end to the systemic wastefulness of the current system with the savings re-invested in the classroom. They would rather have their children attend real community schools that accurately reflect the diverse makeup of the society in which they live and will eventually work.
"Equal treatment for all faith-based schools", Re: "No religious schools funding" (letter, May 13), by Ira Walfish, Multi-Faith Coalition for Equal Funding of Religious Schools, May 17, 2006.
"Only fund the public schools", Re: "No religious schools funding" (letter, May 13), by Maureen Rieger, May 17, 2006.
"Don't deny the children who need God in their school lives", Re: "No religious schools funding" (letter, May 13), by Matthew Jackson, May 18, 2006.
"Public system preferable", Re: "Equal treatment for all faith-based schools" (letter, May 17), by Leonard Baak, President, Education Equality in Ontario, May 19, 2006.
"Better choice, better schooling", Re: "No religious schools funding" (letter, May 13), by John Vanasselt, Director of Communications, Ontario Alliance of Christian Schools, May 20, 2006.
Editor's notes: Strong communities are arguably not fostered when children and families are segregated by religion or by any other characteristic. The aim of public education is not to eliminate differences, as the writer alleges, but to bring children and families with diverse backgrounds together in a climate that fosters understanding and mutual respect. School choice may have its merits, but the public funding of additional religious schools would increase the exclusivity of Ontario school communities, not extend what the author calls the province's "legacy of inclusion".
Copyright © 2006 Education Equality in Ontario. All Rights Reserved.
